"A centre of excellence in digital information management, providing advice and services to the library, information and cultural heritage communities."

A summary of the three discussion groups on opportunities for making use of Web 2.0 (and associated challenges in one case) is given below.

Group 1

Low-hanging fruit:

• del.iciou.us
• Wikipedia (easy to update; v popular)
• Facebook (easy to set group up; popular)
• Don't have to worry about templates, ..

Challenges

• RSS, but maybe just for large orgs in areas such as advertising events
• Blogs if you have something worthwhile to say
• YouTube esp. for museums museum video plus narrative. Embed in your own Web site as well as in YouTube

Group 2

• V. useful for marketing
• Lecture podcasts - building on existing lunchtime lecturers
• Blogs for book reviews
• Blogs for feedback for visitor to museums
• Useful for evaluation
• Adds to nos. of visited sites (may be needed in KPIs)
• Seeing what ones' peers are doing and learning from
• Widgets look interesting e.g. ask-a-librarian
• Local history - building archives; comments from visitors on old photos
• Google Maps - what else is near your organisation

Group 3

• Wider audience engagement *(with virtual audience). Access benefits
• Useful for post-visit comments and keeping in contact with visitors
• Can build communities around topics of interest
• Use of photos to enhance archives
• Asking people for info on photos on archives
• Keeping in touch with colleagues & sharing knowledge across community
• Networking between organisations
• Education and use in outreach to children
• Using Skype to engage with experts who may be remote
• Use for bookclubs, etc. - a space for discussions
• Today's Web 2.0 stuff is tomorrow's social history
• Use of cameras, videos etc. - user views on objects,...
• Engaging with people who might not have visited the museum
• Encouraging children through use of podcasts to share stories across generations
• English content could be mashed and translated for international audiences
• Can recruit volunteers to work on web 2.0 from outside normal geographical constraints
• Could solicit reviews of merchandising
• Use of Youtube for oral/video history projects
• Storage or archives is cheaper and easier than storing fragile old documents, etc.
• Could use free web 2.0 sites to try out web activity that could then be bought 'in house' if successful
• MLA could develop web 2.0 tools specifically for their community